There are a few other reviews so I'll keep this brief: I'm not a big fan of much electronic music, but I do like some DJ type stuff, a little trance, dub, etc. and I have some of Ninja Tune's catalogue, and this is bar none the best collection of its kind I've heard.

Ninja Tune has covered a lot of ground, and DJ Krush and Coldcut give you an excellent overview in these two discs. On disc one, DJ Krush covers the downtempo, abstract jazz and more hip-hop inflected stuff from Ninja Tune. I personally prefer Disc 2 by Coldcut, where they get into some of the more frenetic abstract jazz and jungle that first attracted me to the label.

Whatever side of that argument you fall on, these two DJs seemlessly lead the listener through a musical odyssey that covers significant ground, always stays interesting, and carries you from Point A to a very unpredictable and welcome destination. If you at all like the Ninja catalogue (Amon Tobin, Funki Porcini, etc.) this is can't miss -- easily the best Ninja comp yet.

I really wanted to like this book. A close friend who shares a lot of my taste in writing (Borges, TC Boyle, ZZ Packer, Lester Bangs, etc.) recommended it as great contemporary short fiction, and since I trust his taste I'll chalk it up to a difference in opinion, but I just couldn't get into "Pastoralia."

I read the book back-to-front, mainly because the last short story, "The Falls," was also the shortest, and I thought a quick read would give me a sense of what Saunders is all about. As it turns out, this was one of my favorite stories in this collection. Saunders effortlessly moves between two very distinct worldviews and creates in Morse a convincing narrator who's paralyzed by his own indecisiveness and self-doubt. The ending left me a little flat, but as a raw writing exercise it was really excellent and left me optimistic about the rest of the book.

On the whole, though, I was really let down. My two biggest criticisms are: 1) Saunders uses the same rambling, stream-of-consciousness style throughout every story. He has a distinct voice and at first I enjoyed getting inside his (neurotic, typically pathetic) character's heads, but after awhile I found the long, run-on sentences and terse writing style (there's almost a complete abscence of anything but the most basic description) to be very tedius. His narrators are all so similar in their overanalysis and cynical worldview that after awhile I couldn't truly distinguish one character for another. I've got to agree with whoever said that Saunders is better at creating caricatures than characters. 2) Saunders stories really lack any emotional heft to them. I've read that his stories are very dark and bleak (agreed) but also that there's a real pathos to his writing, and I fail to see it. His characters are ALL paralyzed by the same trite meaningless of the modern world, and reading about their various neurosis and quirks without any greater understanding of what makes them tick or any attempt to transcend their pathetic existance was about as engaging to me as reading the nutritional information of a McDonald's happy meal. I don't know people like this, I'm glad that I don't, and after 2 or 3 rounds of essentially the same character I found that I cared less and less what happened to them.

I give it two stars because from a completely stylistic point of view, there's some redeeming merit here. Saunders obviously writes well and his best stories, like "The Falls," are a blueprint for subtly moving between points of view. "Winky" was another highlight for me for the same reason. But without any real core theme other than "modern life is trite, meaningless and stupid" (not much of an original thought) this just reads to me like very well-written hyper-realism by somebody who doesn't have much to say.

I've seen Saunders compared to TC Boyle, but for my money Boyle is the much better writer; he creates characters who are flawed and trapped in their own mileau, but characters who are also believable and close enough to reality that their challenges ring true and made me care about the outcome. Saunders reminds me an awful lot more of Frederick Barthelme, another skilled writer who manages to document modern life without ever really making the reader care about it.

There are hundreds if not thousands of books on writing, and having read more than a few of them I can tell you that you'd do a lot worse than to start with "Stein on Writing." The book is fast-paced, clearly written, and offers some very practical tools to improve your fiction.

Most of the brass tacks of this book are in Part II, Fiction. This section includes 16 different chapters on all of the basics -- characterization, plotting, dialogue, point of view, etc. -- with some subchapters that include techniques or exercises that this reader didn't expect. For example, Stein's section on plotting includes two chapters on the Crucible and the Actors Studio method for developing plots. Personally I found his chapters on characterization most useful. Stein briskly walks the reader through quick ways to help shape a character, such as markers, dialogue and in some cases a little exaggeration. Throughout the book Stein sprinkles some very effective examples from what seems like hundreds of authors. I found his writing to be clear and very fast, without any time wasted on "the writer's life" and other such new age nonsense I've seen in a lot of this kind of book. At 300 pages you're getting a very quick, pragmatic read.

I've only got one big criticism of this book: Sol Stein admits from the get-go that his primary interest is in character-driven literary fiction, and that's the entire focus of his book. I didn't expect him to cover genre fiction; honestly if you're going to write mysteries or sci-fi you'd be much better served by purchasing a book that focuses on that market. But I found it frustrating that at least according to Stein, the entire universe of "literary fiction" is driven by character. For the most part he's probably right, but I've also read literary fiction that's driven by theme, plot, and the author's style. I got the sense that most of the authors Stein has worked with were doing their best work 30+ years ago, and that he's a little uninformed on newer literature and authors. Stein also writes in a very diffinitive style that comes off a little arrogant at points and could be offputting, but so many literature teachers are like that anyway.

Overall, this is a great start but not the Holy Bible on good fiction writing his devotees might have you believe.

There are hundreds of reviews here so I won't bother rehashing the entire plot, but here's my take:

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil is a confused film that isn't sure what it wants to be. Is it a murder-mystery? A romantic comedy? A courtroom drama? A funloving adventure into a surreal southern landscape? A dark medication on the nature of the truth?

Honestly, it's all of these things, and it does most of them pretty well. The problem is, you never really get a sense for what the core issue or conflict is. So when the film ends, it veers in a direction that the previous 2 hours and 15 minutes really didn't prep you for, and personally I felt like it was a little contrived.

The core of the movie is a murder/investigation/trial, and most of that was material I enjoyed. The problem is, Midnight... crams so many subplots and divergences into the story that everything feels sort of wattered down and left this viewer unsatisfied.

I suspect that a sprawling, scattershot look at Savannah, Georgia might be pretty darn interesting, but as a movie it felt overlong, logically inconsistent and frankly a little boring. Every half hour or so I kept checking the timer and wondering when the story was going to start. Then it ended.

Like most people who've read "A Conspiracy of Paper" by David Liss, I'm a big fan of historical fiction, mystery, and the growing niche of books that blend the two genres, but this one won't want recount the plot (since you probably have a good idea of what it's about) but here are a few things I liked and disliked about the book:

I enjoyed reading about Jewish characters in 1700s England. Honestly I'd never considered that there was any significant Jewish community in London at that time, and it was interesting to learn about some of the restrictions on their way of life (not allowed to own property, treated as 2nd class citizens, etc.) and to read about the protagonist Ben Weaver's struggle to fit into traditional British society and to reconcile that with his Jewish roots. It was also interesting, at least in theory, to read about early stock market scandals, particularly since more sophisticated market scams (Enron, ImClone, etc.) have been big news over the last few years.

That said, as a mystery "A Conspiracy of Paper" is pretty ho-hum. Liss barely scratches the surface of London's stock exchange, instead painting the conspiracy in the broadest of strokes. "A Conspiracy of Paper" is guilty of one of my biggest book pet peeves: The mystery isn't properly foreshadowed or woven into the plot, so it comes off somewhat coincidental and left this reader flat. Weaver's true enemy really could have been a half dozen other characters in the book, all of whom would have been at least as credible as the villain. And, I found Ben Weaver to be a pretty simple, bland and generic protagonist for this kind of books. A skilled "thief-taker" (i.e. bounty hunter), boxer, good looking, fairly successful, etc.

For a quick read or summertime beach book, you could do a lot worse than "A Conspiracy of Paper," but in all it was a pretty routine and by-the-numbers mystery dressed up in Judaism and 1700s London garb.

It's so nice to hear a band that isn't mining the same old range of influences (Velvet Underground, Clash, Stooges, etc.) as the Strokes, Libertines, Mooney Suzuki and the whole "new rock revival" crowd.

Instead, Longwave has a really interesting mix of influences, ranging from 80s new wave to Slowdive and My Bloody Valentine-type shoegaze rock. Many of the songs feature some really interesting guitar noise and the singer has a lush, charismatic voice. It's also a refreshing change of pace to hear a singer who sounds optimistic and upbeat, instead of the same old angst ridden drugged out, Lou Reed wannabes infecting the airwaves today.

I don't think Longwave sounds much like Interpol, but fans of that band would probably dig "Strangest Things." Even better, if you dig the Strafford 4 or are a fan of My Bloody Valentine looking for an alternative to "Loveless," you could do a lot worse than "Strangest Things."

Personally felt a little let down by the band. Something of a mixture of epic, wall-of-sound type post-rock (a la Godspeed! YBE, new Unwound, etc.) with a fuzzy hard rock edge that's not too dissimilar from Monster Magnet's earlier more creative and "trippy" stuff. Sounded right up my alley. The only problem is, most of the bands that Trail of the Dead sound like have put out better records. The vocals are a little cloying, and the songs muddle together without really gripping you.

I really wanted to like this record but after a few listens it disappeared on my shelf and I'm in no hurry to check it out again. Other fans of Godspeed!, My Bloody Valentine, Sonic Youth, etc. might be disappointed. If you're more a fan of sort-of experimental hard rock like Tool maybe you'd dig this more than I did.

The plot is about as bare-bones as an exploitation film gets: A writer from the "big city" rents a country home to work on a new novel. A group of hicks attack and rape her several times, then leave her for dead. She recovers, and seduces, then murders them one by one. Roll credits.

I'm really baffled as to the purpose of this film.

Are the rape scenes realistic? Sure; they're graphic and uncomfortable. Is the realistic portrayal of rape in itself a worthy goal for a movie? Not really. I could make a movie that realistically portrays animal torture and prison sex... but without a plot or characters, why would anyone waste 90 minutes of their time?

Viewers who say there's some kind of feminist subtext to the film are putting a lot more thought into the picture than the director did. Keaton continues to be a sex object right until the end of the picture.

What's really awful about the film, though, is the completely amateurish acting, cinematography, dialogue and script. The movie does not even have a soundtrack. Really awful stuff.

If you want to see a rigorously disturbing horror/exploitation film that ALSO has some artistic sense, find a copy of "Cannibal Holocaust." It's infinitely better than this awful, awful film.

In my opinion, Phenomena is Argento's most under rated film and it's easily my favorite. What I really enjoyed about it was that it has a surreal, dreamlike quality and builds a disorienting, creepy atmosphere. What other film can boast a murderous dwarf, swarming insects, a sleepwalker who can talk to bugs, piles of maggots and a razor-weilding monkey? Jennifer Connolly is very easy on the eyes, and the soundtrack moves from a moody score by the Goblins to 80s hair metal, giving it an appropriate amount of cheese and livening things up a bit. The end chase scene / climax of the movie is also pretty shocking. Like nearly all of his other movies, the dialogue is stilted and the plot a bit incoherent, but Connolly gives the lead role some charisma and the movie looks great; no one goes to see this kind of movie for a logical plot and taut, snappy dialogue anyway. A very good film, and much more of a fairy tale than any of Argento's other movies; I highly recommend it.

I've enjoyed several other Cronenberg films but Existenz really didn't do much for me. Maybe this was intentional, but the dialogue was really stilted, and the acting--stiff, unrealistic, without any real passion--turned me off. Existenz's protagonists speak in this slightly off dialogue that reminded me a bit of the futuristic lingo in Aeon Flux, but in this case it just came off silly. Watching this in the theater, I wasn't the only person chuckling at some of the unintentionally bad one-liners...

What sort of irritated me about Existenz, and a lot of what I'd call "art film," is that it seems to substitute "meaninglessness" for "ambiguity." In other words, the movie throws in a few visual flashes and C's trademark weirdness for no other reason than to be "different," and then expects the viewer to attribute some sort of deep meaning to what's going on, when it's really just an exercise in stylistic excess. I've noticed this in some of David Lynch's film, and it's a habit that makes Existenz a little annoying and even condescending to the viewer.

Anyway, I've heard the film compared to the Matrix, and the overarching theme (confusion between virtual reality and actual reality) is there, but the non-linear plot seems like it's there just to serve the visuals--namely some strange physical weaponry, a couple interesting settings, a few murders, maybe one steamy sexual scene. It reminded me more of Videodrome, a much better Cronenberg film that managed to hit on all of the themes of Existenz (technology, virtual reality, sexuality) plus quite a few more (moral decay, societal corruption, S&M, voyeurism, etc.).

Videodrome is, in my opinion, a lot more interesting visually, it has much more resonance and was just a flat-out more entertaining and satisfying flick. It's not that I didn't like Existenz, but it's sort of like Inferno is to Dario Argento's Suspiria--basically an inferior copy of a much better movie by the same director. Existenz is worth renting if you aren't familiar with Cronenberg or are a big fan/completist, but Videodrome is the real deal.